|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/emulate: add support of emulating SSE2 instruction {, v}movd mm, r32/m32 and {, v}movq mm, r64
On Monday 01 August 2016 10:52:12 Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/08/16 03:52, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> > Found that Windows driver was using a SSE2 instruction MOVD.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Picked from the XenServer 7 patch queue, as suggested by Andrew Cooper
> >
> > Changed since v2:
> > * handle the case where the destination is a GPR
> > ---
> > xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c | 38
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> > b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> > index 44de3b6..9f89ada 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static uint8_t twobyte_table[256] = {
> > /* 0x60 - 0x6F */
> > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ImplicitOps|ModRM,
> > /* 0x70 - 0x7F */
> > - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ImplicitOps|ModRM,
> > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ImplicitOps|ModRM,
> > ImplicitOps|ModRM,
> > /* 0x80 - 0x87 */
> > ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps,
> > ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps,
> > @@ -4409,6 +4409,10 @@ x86_emulate(
> > case 0x6f: /* movq mm/m64,mm */
> > /* {,v}movdq{a,u} xmm/m128,xmm */
> > /* vmovdq{a,u} ymm/m256,ymm */
> > + case 0x7e: /* movd mm,r/m32 */
> > + /* movq mm,r/m64 */
> > + /* {,v}movd xmm,r/m32 */
> > + /* {,v}movq xmm,r/m64 */
> > case 0x7f: /* movq mm,mm/m64 */
> > /* {,v}movdq{a,u} xmm,xmm/m128 */
> > /* vmovdq{a,u} ymm,ymm/m256 */
> > @@ -4432,7 +4436,17 @@ x86_emulate(
> > host_and_vcpu_must_have(sse2);
> > buf[0] = 0x66; /* SSE */
> > get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_xmm, &fic);
> > - ea.bytes = (b == 0xd6 ? 8 : 16);
> > + switch ( b )
> > + {
> > + case 0x7e:
> > + ea.bytes = 4;
> > + break;
> > + case 0xd6:
> > + ea.bytes = 8;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + ea.bytes = 16;
> > + }
> > break;
> > case vex_none:
> > if ( b != 0xe7 )
> > @@ -4452,7 +4466,17 @@ x86_emulate(
> > ((vex.pfx != vex_66) && (vex.pfx != vex_f3)));
> > host_and_vcpu_must_have(avx);
> > get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_ymm, &fic);
> > - ea.bytes = (b == 0xd6 ? 8 : (16 << vex.l));
> > + switch ( b )
> > + {
> > + case 0x7e:
> > + ea.bytes = 4;
> > + break;
> > + case 0xd6:
> > + ea.bytes = 8;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + ea.bytes = 16 << vex.l;
> > + }
> > }
> > if ( ea.type == OP_MEM )
> > {
> > @@ -4468,6 +4492,14 @@ x86_emulate(
> > vex.b = 1;
> > buf[4] &= 0x38;
> > }
> > + else if ( b == 0x7e )
> > + {
> > + /* convert the GPR destination to (%rAX) */
> > + *((unsigned long *)&mmvalp) = (unsigned long)ea.reg;
> > + rex_prefix &= ~REX_B;
> > + vex.b = 1;
> > + buf[4] &= 0x38;
> > + }
>
> Thankyou for doing this. However, looking at it, it has some code in
> common with the "ea.type == OP_MEM" clause.
>
> Would this work?
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> index fe594ba..90db067 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -4453,16 +4453,25 @@ x86_emulate(
> get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_ymm, &fic);
> ea.bytes = 16 << vex.l;
> }
> - if ( ea.type == OP_MEM )
> + if ( ea.type == OP_MEM || ea.type == OP_REG )
> {
> - /* XXX enable once there is ops->ea() or equivalent
> - generate_exception_if((vex.pfx == vex_66) &&
> - (ops->ea(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off)
> - & (ea.bytes - 1)), EXC_GP, 0); */
> - if ( b == 0x6f )
> - rc = ops->read(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off+0, mmvalp,
> - ea.bytes, ctxt);
> /* convert memory operand to (%rAX) */
> +
> + if ( ea.type == OP_MEM)
> + {
> + /* XXX enable once there is ops->ea() or equivalent
> + generate_exception_if((vex.pfx == vex_66) &&
> + (ops->ea(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off)
> + & (ea.bytes - 1)), EXC_GP, 0); */
> + if ( b == 0x6f )
> + rc = ops->read(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off+0, mmvalp,
> + ea.bytes, ctxt);
> + }
> + else if ( ea.type == OP_REG )
> + {
> + *((unsigned long *)&mmvalp) = (unsigned long)ea.reg;
> + }
> +
> rex_prefix &= ~REX_B;
> vex.b = 1;
> buf[4] &= 0x38;
>
>
> This is untested, but avoids duplicating this bit of state maniupulation.
Your suggestion makes sense, but I'm starting to doubt my initial
patch. :-) I'm testing "movq xmm1, xmm1" and noticing that it takes the
GPR-handling route and I can't seem to be able to easily prevent it
with !(rex_prefix & REX_B), as rex_prefix == 0 and vex.b == 1. I need
to take a harder look at how that class of instructions is coded.
--
Mihai DONȚU
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |